Richmond Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had systems in place which positively supported a culture of safety. Leaders told us all incidents and accidents were reviewed using a root cause analysis tool to consider any learning. Trends were considered and any learning was shared with staff in meetings and in handovers. Staff confirmed they had information about learning from incidents shared with them on a regular basis and records we saw supported what we were told. People told us they hadn’t had any accidents but felt confident these would be managed well should this happen. One person told us, “I know that I would speak to the manager, and this would be reported by staff if I did.”

The provider worked in partnership to provide people’s care. People told us they had a positive experience when transitioning into the service. One person told us, “I came for a respite stay and I decided to stay at the home. The home was very welcoming, and the staff were nice.” Leaders told us when people were admitted to the service their needs were assessed, and care plans were put in place to meet them. Staff told us they had all the information they needed to support people safely when they came into the home.

People were safely supported by staff who understood how to safeguard them from abuse. People and their relatives all shared they felt safe living at the service and understood how to report any concerns. One person told us, “I feel safe here, if I didn’t, I would move out and speak to the manager.'' A relative told us, “[Person’s name] is safe here I am sure of that.” Leaders told us they had systems in place to ensure staff understood how to recognise abuse and report any concerns including training for staff. Staff could describe how they would recognise abuse and what they would do to ensure people were safeguarded. All incidents of potential abuse were identified and reported to the appropriate body. Where required, applications were made to the authorising body for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard and any conditions required were met.

People were supported to manage risks to their safety. People told us staff worked with them to manage risks to their safety. One person told us, “I can get to the edge of the bed, and they can take me to the chair by holding my hand.” Leaders told us people had risk assessments and management plans in place for people with identified risks to their safety which guided staff on the support people needed. The risk assessment and management plans we reviewed supported this. Staff could describe how they used a hoist with the persons own sling to help with safe transfers. They understood the steps to take to support someone with a pressure injury to help healing. They could describe how to support people with distressed behaviours by staying calm, listening to the person and how they documented any incidents to help them learn about what triggered the behaviour.

The provider had systems in place to detect potential risks in the care environment. However, we found where the fire risk assessment had identified concerns with fire safety there had been a delay in seeking the remedial work required. The local authority identified this, and the provider took action to seek an assessment of the work required. At the time of the assessment a contractor had been identified to complete the work over a two-month period. We will check this at our next assessment. The provider had put additional fire safety measures in place to manage the risk whilst work was underway. Staff told us they had access to equipment to support people and people told us they were happy with the home. One person told us, “My bedroom is really nice I am very happy with it.”

People were supported by enough suitably skilled staff to meet their needs and keep them safe. Relatives complemented the staff on their approach with people. One person told us, “I would say most of the time there is always enough staff”. Another person told us, “I have only needed to wait for staff longer than usual on 1 occasion and there was an emergency, so it was understandable.” A relative told us, “The staff are nice, helpful and informative.” Leaders described staff receiving an induction into their role and regular updates to their training. Staff confirmed they received an induction, training and regular checks on competency. Records we saw supported this. Leaders told us they had a system in place to ensure they had enough staff available to support people safely. Staff told us they felt there was enough staff to meet people’s needs and our observations and speaking with people confirmed this.

People were protected from the risk of infection. One person told us, “The home is always clean, the cleaners are here every day and yes the staff all wear gloves and aprons.” A relative told us, “The home is always clean.” Leaders told us they had a policy in place to guide infection prevention control practice and staff had been trained in procedures. Staff confirmed they understood how to protect people from the risk of cross infection, and we saw staff used appropriate techniques to wash hands and use protective equipment.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. One person told us, “The nurse supports and administers medication. We usually have it given at the same time every day.” Leaders told us the medicines system used an individual risk assessment and care plan to determine the support people needed. They described protocols in place for medicines prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis and how topical medicines were administered and recorded. Staff understood how medicines were administered and were knowledgeable about how medicines were stored, administered and recorded. We saw medicines were administered and recorded as they were prescribed and people told us they received the support they needed.